We call on the Maldivian Government to immediately free Mohamed Nazim.
His human rights must be respected.
The full force of the law must be applied to find and bring those who attacked him to account for their crime.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Zakir Naik wants Muslim Maldivians to kill Non Muslim Maldivians
Muslim Maldivians beware. This the dangerous propaganda this man is spreading.
Watch video and decide for your self . Do you really want your children to be taught these kinds of things?
Watch video and decide for your self . Do you really want your children to be taught these kinds of things?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Do you think Zakir Naik will create more intolerance in Maldives?
After watching his videos, we think that Zakir Naik will turn Maldivian against Maldivian, father and mothers and sons and daughters against each other. He preaches intolerance.
His ideas are not good for the future of our beloved nation.
Please look this one video. There is many online.
His ideas are not good for the future of our beloved nation.
Please look this one video. There is many online.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Information limiting culture is not good for future
Some practices of Muslim Maldivians are sadly very damaging to themselves, their children and society. Muslim Maldivians take censorship very seriously and there are many things banned for Muslim Maldivians by their Scholars.
Take example this conversation on Facebook:Hathim Ah Long Ali Ok, serious question is serious ... How strict is Maldivian law towards the showing of ''other faiths'' on Cable TV. I was watching Nat Geo, and they were showing a really interesting program about Jesus Christ, Bethlehem and the Palestine-Israel Conflict all rolled into one ''Inside Bethlehem'' I believe... So 10 minu...tes in as I was getting more engrossed in it .... The program suddenly cuts to black and the channel is completely cut leaving an empty screen... Was it pure coincidence or are they not allowed to show such stuff on Cable? - I did some surfing and even Animal Planet was cut off .... So just bad timing perhaps?
When Maldivians are deprived of knowledge that is generally available around the world the population is more ignorant of the world . By censoring information Muslim Maldivians are pushing themselves and their families and the whole nation into further ignorance.
Soon all the people may be Islamic Scholars who know all the good Muslim books and the correct Path to Heaven of Islam.
But many educated Muslim Maldivians and Non Muslim Maldivians who do not like such restrictions to information will leave the country.
Then WHO will operate computers, windmills, solar panels, airplanes etc?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The good moral of the Muslim Maldivian
There are many Muslim Maldivians.
There are Sunnis and Sufis. There are Salafis and Wahhabees and different beliefs and different sects. Many Muslim Maldivians perform a few religious obligations perfunctorily while others are zealous in dedication to prayers. Some never set a foot inside a mosque unless relative or friend or enemy is dead. Some never bow head towards Mecca but if you ask they say they are Muslims. Some people recite Gur'aan and Solavaai fulu daily. Some Muslim Maldivians sometimes change some of their religious belief. Some people have travelled dozens of times to the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.
Muslim Maldivians do not have any ill will or hatred for people of other religious beliefs. Many Muslim Maldivians life outside Maldives among Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc. Many Muslim Maldivians send their sons and daughters to live and study with people of other religions in countries where there are other religions. Many Muslims have friends who are Christians.
The good moral of the Muslim Maldivian is defend and protect the minority Non Muslim Maldivians from any discrimination or persecution because of their religious belief.
There are Sunnis and Sufis. There are Salafis and Wahhabees and different beliefs and different sects. Many Muslim Maldivians perform a few religious obligations perfunctorily while others are zealous in dedication to prayers. Some never set a foot inside a mosque unless relative or friend or enemy is dead. Some never bow head towards Mecca but if you ask they say they are Muslims. Some people recite Gur'aan and Solavaai fulu daily. Some Muslim Maldivians sometimes change some of their religious belief. Some people have travelled dozens of times to the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina.
Muslim Maldivians do not have any ill will or hatred for people of other religious beliefs. Many Muslim Maldivians life outside Maldives among Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc. Many Muslim Maldivians send their sons and daughters to live and study with people of other religions in countries where there are other religions. Many Muslims have friends who are Christians.
The good moral of the Muslim Maldivian is defend and protect the minority Non Muslim Maldivians from any discrimination or persecution because of their religious belief.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Who are the Non Muslim Maldivians?
They are just like the other Maldivian. There is no physical difference. One difference is what they believe about this universe and creation.
Muslim Maldivian believe that everything was created by a being they call Allah and so on...
There is many kind of beliefs among Non Muslims. Some Non Muslims are Hindhus. Others are Buddhists. There is atheists. There are Christians and satanist and etc.
The other difference is Non Muslim Maldivians do get Human Rights in their own country.
Except for this different belief they are the same as Muslim Maldivians.
There is no physical difference. They are your sons and your daughters. Your mothers and fathers. Your brothers and sisters.
Muslim Maldivian believe that everything was created by a being they call Allah and so on...
There is many kind of beliefs among Non Muslims. Some Non Muslims are Hindhus. Others are Buddhists. There is atheists. There are Christians and satanist and etc.
The other difference is Non Muslim Maldivians do get Human Rights in their own country.
Except for this different belief they are the same as Muslim Maldivians.
There is no physical difference. They are your sons and your daughters. Your mothers and fathers. Your brothers and sisters.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Join Non Muslim Maldivians & Friends with Instant Messaging & Video Chat
By popular demand the Paltalk Chat Room with Instant Messaging & Video Chat for Non Muslim Maldivians and Friends will be opened again.
To join Non Muslim Maldivians & Friends download Paltalk free. Room is in Other section under Asia, Pacific, Oceania.
Click here to download Paltalk and join Non Muslim Maldivians & Friends
Please not that at times the room may be closed due to unforeseen circumstances
To join Non Muslim Maldivians & Friends download Paltalk free. Room is in Other section under Asia, Pacific, Oceania.
Click here to download Paltalk and join Non Muslim Maldivians & Friends
Please not that at times the room may be closed due to unforeseen circumstances
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Islamic Law Strangles Free Speech
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - I am being patted down by a female Danish security officer in the basement of the parliament building in Copenhagen and I have a thought. I have just triggered the metal detector - my heels, I'm sure - en route upstairs to the Landstingssalen, formerly the parliament's upper house. There, I am scheduled to deliver a speech at the invitation of the Danish Free Press Society, or Trykkefrihedsselskabet. (Say that three times fast - or slow.)
Indeed, I am holding the text of my 20-minute address inside a folder in one of my hands, now rigidly outstretched as I am being searched. The speech is called ``The Impact of Islam on Free Speech in the U.S.,'' but as I am checked for bombs and knives and whatnot, my thought is of the impact of Islam on free society everywhere.
Such a thought surely tops the heights of ``political incorrectness,'' I know. But what should I do - not express it? Not think it? Not even notice that Western civilization, in skewing to accommodate the jihad threat of Islam within, has already traded away too much precious freedom?
As the security officer continues patting me down, I follow this forbidden train of thought to the realization that it is only due to the incursions of Islam into the West - Islam with its death penalty for criticism of Islam - that I am now standing here under guard. Here we are (for there is a long line behind me by now), participants in a conference to consider Islam's censoring impact on free speech, and Danish security is doing its best to prevent Islam from censoring the speech of anyone here permanently. This strikes me as an exceedingly hard way to prove a point.
Not that there are many people likely to try outside the elegant, security-ringed conference room upstairs. In PC lingo, security in the basement is looking for ``terrorists'' or ``extremists'' - those postmodern designations for perpetrators of Islamic jihad that, presto, turn everything Islamic into something generic. Still, with Islam comes jihad, and with jihad comes Islamic law (Sharia), no matter what ``experts'' tell you. And because Islam is a growing presence in the West, Western countries must now and presumably forever expend vast sums of money and manpower to manage - not defeat, just manage - the jihad that can break out in acts large and small at any time. Increasingly, this also means deferring to Sharia. Finally, my pre-conference frisk is over. Hallelujah, I am no threat to society and allowed to pass. I go on to meet for the first time the great author Wafa Sultan, and meet again the great Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the two most illustrious speakers on the conference roster.
Both Sultan and Wilders, of course, live under unrelenting, permanent and Islamic threat of death for their critiques of Islam, in a very real way suffering every day for defying Sharia's prohibition against criticizing Islam. But does the outrageousness of their plight resonate with their fellow citizens? I don't think so. I think we've all grown much too used to it, and dully complacent.
But imagine if I had written, circa 1970, that for his critique of communism, Ronald Reagan lived under unrelenting, permanent and communist threat of death in his beloved California, that he couldn't travel the streets of Los Angeles without a massive security retinue, that he could no longer even sleep in his own home. Wouldn't Americans have become rightly agitated over the communist enemy within?
I think the answer would have been yes, but the point is, no such mortal homeland danger existed at that time for those who spoke against the leading threat to Western-style liberty. Today, a mortal homeland danger does exist. I won't tell you what it was like to slip in and out of the Wilders security bubble during the course of his stay in Copenhagen, but suffice it to say, it is both a veritable shame and an outrage that his life depends on that bubble, and that for speaking his mind in defense of Western-style liberty he has lost his own freedom.
The same goes for Wafa Sultan, who, for attacking the repressiveness of Islamic law (under which she existed for 30 years in Syria), also lives privately a similarly wary, hunted life that necessitates protective security measures.
Remember, this is happening in the ``Free World.'' Whether in Denmark, Holland or the United States, the heavy hand of Islamic law is pressing in on its leading critics, squeezing the freedom out of their existence. It is time to say enough - literally enough, for example, and stop Sharia by stopping Islamic immigration - and throw off the rising chokehold of jihad-advanced Sharia. I guarantee it will take a lot more effort than just patting down the occasional free speechnik, but I also guarantee that for the sake of free speech it is worth it.
By Diana West
Indeed, I am holding the text of my 20-minute address inside a folder in one of my hands, now rigidly outstretched as I am being searched. The speech is called ``The Impact of Islam on Free Speech in the U.S.,'' but as I am checked for bombs and knives and whatnot, my thought is of the impact of Islam on free society everywhere.
Such a thought surely tops the heights of ``political incorrectness,'' I know. But what should I do - not express it? Not think it? Not even notice that Western civilization, in skewing to accommodate the jihad threat of Islam within, has already traded away too much precious freedom?
As the security officer continues patting me down, I follow this forbidden train of thought to the realization that it is only due to the incursions of Islam into the West - Islam with its death penalty for criticism of Islam - that I am now standing here under guard. Here we are (for there is a long line behind me by now), participants in a conference to consider Islam's censoring impact on free speech, and Danish security is doing its best to prevent Islam from censoring the speech of anyone here permanently. This strikes me as an exceedingly hard way to prove a point.
Not that there are many people likely to try outside the elegant, security-ringed conference room upstairs. In PC lingo, security in the basement is looking for ``terrorists'' or ``extremists'' - those postmodern designations for perpetrators of Islamic jihad that, presto, turn everything Islamic into something generic. Still, with Islam comes jihad, and with jihad comes Islamic law (Sharia), no matter what ``experts'' tell you. And because Islam is a growing presence in the West, Western countries must now and presumably forever expend vast sums of money and manpower to manage - not defeat, just manage - the jihad that can break out in acts large and small at any time. Increasingly, this also means deferring to Sharia. Finally, my pre-conference frisk is over. Hallelujah, I am no threat to society and allowed to pass. I go on to meet for the first time the great author Wafa Sultan, and meet again the great Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the two most illustrious speakers on the conference roster.
Both Sultan and Wilders, of course, live under unrelenting, permanent and Islamic threat of death for their critiques of Islam, in a very real way suffering every day for defying Sharia's prohibition against criticizing Islam. But does the outrageousness of their plight resonate with their fellow citizens? I don't think so. I think we've all grown much too used to it, and dully complacent.
But imagine if I had written, circa 1970, that for his critique of communism, Ronald Reagan lived under unrelenting, permanent and communist threat of death in his beloved California, that he couldn't travel the streets of Los Angeles without a massive security retinue, that he could no longer even sleep in his own home. Wouldn't Americans have become rightly agitated over the communist enemy within?
I think the answer would have been yes, but the point is, no such mortal homeland danger existed at that time for those who spoke against the leading threat to Western-style liberty. Today, a mortal homeland danger does exist. I won't tell you what it was like to slip in and out of the Wilders security bubble during the course of his stay in Copenhagen, but suffice it to say, it is both a veritable shame and an outrage that his life depends on that bubble, and that for speaking his mind in defense of Western-style liberty he has lost his own freedom.
The same goes for Wafa Sultan, who, for attacking the repressiveness of Islamic law (under which she existed for 30 years in Syria), also lives privately a similarly wary, hunted life that necessitates protective security measures.
Remember, this is happening in the ``Free World.'' Whether in Denmark, Holland or the United States, the heavy hand of Islamic law is pressing in on its leading critics, squeezing the freedom out of their existence. It is time to say enough - literally enough, for example, and stop Sharia by stopping Islamic immigration - and throw off the rising chokehold of jihad-advanced Sharia. I guarantee it will take a lot more effort than just patting down the occasional free speechnik, but I also guarantee that for the sake of free speech it is worth it.
By Diana West
Monday, March 16, 2009
Are we living in the era of Islamic censorship?
In last few months three important developments took place which were although directly not related with each other but they have some connection between them. First, just before Indian economic capital Mumbai was attacked by Islamic terroists on 26 November last year the largest Islamic body OIC approached the supreme law making body of the world UN with a resolution to make it compulsory for the countries of this world to declare vilification of prophet of any religion as illegal as well denouncing the efforts to use term Islamic terrorism in reference to terrorism.
Second, Government of Nederland decided to prosecute president of a political party of this small European state for hurting the sentiments of Muslims with his film “Fitna” based on some controversial ayats of Quran. After the decision of government of Nederland Geert Wilders decided to visit few European countries with message of his controversial film and United Kingdom was one of them. Geert Wilders was banned from UK government and was told to refrain himself from entering into the borders of Britian. Geert Wilders tried to defy the government orders but he was arrested at the airport and expelled from Britain. Geert called this development as a great set back to the freedom of expression.
In third incident, one leading English news paper published from West Bengal in India “The Statesman” reproduced an article from a British news paper and this article become bone of contentious between News paper and Muslim society. Local Muslim groups objected to this article as they found it with some objectionable remarks on their prophet and in few hours of this publication anger come out on streets and local administration intervened and later succumbs to pressure of Muslim groups and decided to arrest editor of news paper with one of his employees although both were released immediately on bail.
All those examples that have been described above did not have any connection between them but still they indicate for one common question. Are we living in the era of Islamic censorship?
This question should be answered by us if we boast to be living in modern world where everyone enjoys the equal freedom. Some times it seems as we are surrounded with hypocrites and pseudo-liberals where Islam has been given privilege on every other religion because no author, publisher, commentator find itself in any regulation or self imposed censorship when it comes to the subject of critical review of any religion other than Islam. Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Jainism all the religions and its scriptures, deities and prophets have been painted in every possible ways which is nothing less than vilification of these sacred figures but any of this religion never approached UN to pass a resolution to stop the criticism or critical review of their scriptures or deities. This difference is pregnant with some larger implications on the society.
Values of modern world could not be imposed on other religions giving full immunity to one because one religion has potential to turn their anger in violence which could ultimately culminate in clash of civilizations.
In last few years world has been exposed to a new threat of extremism and intolerance and this phenomenon is cultivated with theory of atrocity on Muslims. It is very difficult to understand why Muslims around the world always talk about their grievances and impose the responsibility of their grievances on other countries and people. Core of this theory revolves around the exploitation of resources of Middle East from western countries in common and US in particular but it is not the only case even India is also not out of the orbit of this theory. Indian Muslims also being taught how they have been treated with second class partisan behavior. But the most important aspect of this theory is how honest its propagators are and this is the parameter from which we can measure the honesty and political motivation behind this theory.
Theory of atrocity on Muslims is very much related with privilege of Islam and danger of Islamic censorship. Muslims around the world have not only been told how that they have become victim of exploitation but they are told their religion has also been targeted. This theory has made the Muslim across the world over conscious about their religious identity and every step for modernity is proportionate to merging of their religious personality with modern world. This fear psychosis of Muslim society has been exploited by Islamic religious and political leaders very shrewdly.
Continue reading hereSunday, March 8, 2009
The dysfunction of the Muslim world corresponds directly to the persecution of dissent.
Emerging Muslim Freethinkers and the Battle of Civilizations
05 Mar, 2009
The Muslim world is obviously in a mess. Political instability, unbridled corruption, lack of economic development, widespread intolerance and violence, and lack of freedom, liberty and human rights are some of the traits that characterize Muslim societies most glaringly. All indications suggest that things will get only worse over coming decades.
Amongst many factors that differentiate Muslim societies from most other progressive and more peaceful societies are its missing freethinkers—namely critics and reformers—who are able to criticize the troublesome aspects of its societal core, its religious foundations. Other societies had its problems in the past. However, those societies allowed the emergence of progressive freethinking scholars, philosophers and reformers. They exercised variable measures of liberty to criticize, to point fingers at, the underlying reasons, including the religious ones, of the many ills of their societies. Jewish societies produced brilliant minds like Benedict de Spinoza, Carl Marx and Albert Einstein amongst many other; Christianity produced great thinkers like Rene Descartes, Emmanuel Kant, David Hume, John S Mill, Bertrand Russell and many more. Some of these thinkers, Spinoza for example, attracted ire from religious authorities, faced excommunication. Nonetheless, their ideas and views were not choked out; instead, they were disseminated with some measure of ease; security to their life was not threatened. The resilience, the power, of their progressive and reformative social, political and philosophical ideas eventually triumphed. As a result, those societies reformed, secularized, progressed and prospered.
But Muslims societies, the core of which is most intimately integrated with its religious ideals, have never really allowed the emergence of its own breed of freethinkers and progressive reformers, particularly over the past eight centuries.
[........]
As long as intolerance of dissenting ideas remain in force, Islamic world will unlikely emerge from its current malaise and lack of material progress. It is unlikely to change any time soon. There is, however, a glimmer of hope. Kicked out of their home countries, some Muslim dissidents—harbored by the liberal West—are showing their intellectual prowess. Muslim apostates like Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have written bestselling books. Most of all, they, for the first time, are pointing fingers at the debilitating nature of the Islamic theology, which must undergo modernization as have other creeds.
Read it all here
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Muslim Hero Defies Threats as he Fights Radical Islam
Dr. Sami Alrabaa
If what happened to Salahuddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor in chief of the Bangladeshi Weekly Blitz and peace activist, and his colleagues, happened in Tibet or Burma, for instance, the international media would rush to these regions and report about them meticulously, and human rights activists worldwide would take to the streets and demonstrate against the oppressors.
If what happened to Salahuddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor in chief of the Bangladeshi Weekly Blitz and peace activist, and his colleagues, happened in Tibet or Burma, for instance, the international media would rush to these regions and report about them meticulously, and human rights activists worldwide would take to the streets and demonstrate against the oppressors.
Mr. Choudhury is fighting radical Islam in one of largest Muslim countries of the world (150 million). If the West does not support Choudhury’s struggle, a whole society will increasingly drift to Islamism. Bangladesh is being Talibanized day after day.
Choudhury was assaulted on February 22, 2009 by a bunch of radical Muslims affiliated with the Awami League, the party of the recently elected Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed – the same party that claims that it is secular and supports the rule of law.
To add insult to injury, after the premises of the Weekly Blitz were infiltrated by a radical gang affiliated to the Awami League which accuses Choudhury of being an agent for Israel, he and his colleagues were attacked and severely abused by officials of the DGFI (military intelligence).
Choudhury and his co-workers suffered critical injuries.
Choudhury filed a case against the attacking gang and officials of the DGFI. However, a lawyer and advisor to the Prime Minister by the name Shintu urged Choudhury to drop his charges, otherwise he would face fatal consequences – including an extortion of TK 500,000 (about $8,000).
The current atrocities against the Weekly Blitz mark a series of attacks. From 1996-2001, numerous journalists were assaulted by members of the Awami League. In 2003 Choudhury was also attacked, arrested, and brutally tortured for 17 months by government agents. His “crime?” He called for establishing relations with Israel and advocated moderate Islam. He also advocated genuine interfaith dialogues between Muslims and followers of other faiths.
The persecution of Chouhury was meant to appease Islamists across the country, whose number is rising dramatically; an outspoken moderate Muslim must be muzzled by all means.
Since 2003, a court in Dhaka has charged Choudhury with blasphemy, treason, and sedition, and he has been subjected to all kinds of harassment.
Dr. Richard Benkin and Congressman Mark Kirk eventually managed to bail Choudhury out. If these outspoken peace-loving gentlemen, the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, the Australian Senate, and numerous human rights organizations had not interfered, Choudhury would be dead by now. According to the Bangladeshi law, sedition charges deserve the death penalty.
Yet Choudhury is not intimidated. He says,
“People are punished for crime, for creating anarchy and for putting humanity into horrifying terror. But, could we ever believe that someone would be arrested, tortured and imprisoned for long 17 months just for being in favor of global peace, inter-faith dialogue, ending religious hatred and thinking of everything good and noble for mankind? In my case it did happen and after being released on bail keeping the sedition charge very much alive. According to the allegations, my crime is: I am a living contradiction to today's phenomenon in the Muslim world, a Zionist, a defender of Israel and a devout, practicing Muslim living in the second largest Muslim country in the world."
On the issue of interfaith dialogue, which all peace-loving people cherish, Choudhury says,
"Through dialogue we can learn about one another's beliefs and faith. You and I, yes we can challenge belief and build on faith. By this simple action we deepen what it means to us as individual and as a group the idea of being guided, inspired and even acting according to God's plan. The whole idea of faith, trust, and belief is a philosophical debate between individuals from the central point our self and the peripheral our community. Religions can be based on theology but more importantly it should be based on our perception and understanding of God's words as individuals and not as a mass. This had been the reason as to why I promote interfaith dialogue. Religion does not promote hatred however men have promoted hatred by favoring one religion over the others; usually it is their interpretation of what religion means which is based on theology or the word of God as interpreted by men of small minds. Some monotheists accuse others of worshipping idols and having false gods. Some radicals go as far as destroying historical temples. This can be seen when Christians had statues to represent images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary they were either destroyed or painted over. Romans destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Christians and later Muslims destroyed Hindu temples in India or parts or other parts of the world. The first Christian priests were destroying the spiritual icons of natives, and saying they worshipped idols in nature. Hindus destroyed Muslim and Christian Mosques and Churches. The list goes on an on. However, there is another aspect of religion that is often forgotten those from the tradition who have made a contribution to stopping hatred, which promotes better understanding."
Also, Choudhury vehemently opposes the Islamist propaganda spearheaded by Saudi Arabia which propagates that Jews are the enemy of Allah. Choudhury advocates peace among followers of all faiths, and demands that the culture of hatred and violence be out-rooted.
Choudhury is a real hero. He is a valiant fighter who chose to stand up in a hostile environment and fight radical Muslims. He was offered asylum in several Western countries, where he could live in peace. But he turned down all these offers and opted for fighting the virus of out times: Islamism, and added, “If someone is willing to say no to Jihad, he must say it on the ground.”
If the West, and in particular America, is serious about the war on terror, they should wholeheartedly and by all means support Choudhury and all those Muslims who are in the same front on the ground.
All of those writers, Muslim-born, who live in the West, like myself, or Westerners who write about Islam and the need for its reform are undoubtedly doing a good job, but they are preaching to the converts. For reform to become a tangible reality on the ground the world needs heroes like Choudhury.
A Nobel Peace Prize for Choudhury would fuel further his energy and rally more public support for his noble fight. Choudhury is sacrificing himself for peace in his country and the world at large.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex-Muslim, is a professor of Sociology and an Arab-Muslim culture specialist. Before moving to Germany he taught at Kuwait University, King Saud University, and Michigan State University. He also writes for the Jerusalem Post.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism - giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds - are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten - to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind - and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it - but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided - so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech - including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed - so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN - and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" - and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest - but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's - or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies - that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" - and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs - but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea - at the heart of the Universal Declaration - is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
From Common Dreams
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Constitution or Shariah Law?
One of the important developments in our constitutional structure was the establishment of the Special Majlis; as a response to the demand for a strengthening of the checks and balances in the system of state administration and constitutional reform.Recently, the special Majlis is forced to stay put on disagreements over whether to include Islamic Shariah law in the constitution. The government is equally uneasy of religious dissent apparently on the rise in the Maldives and fearful of the growing Islamic extremism in The Maldives. In this state of affairs both opposition and the government is reluctant to enter a new stage of constitutional reform and practice in regard to fight for the basic right of freedom of religion.This basic right is clearly stated in international human rights instruments, particularly Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)."Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance". UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948.Until today, the main problems regarding the protection of freedom of religion have never entered the arena of Special Majlis and in constitutional reform. A constitution as the supreme law of the land sets out the basic structure of the governmental system in every nation. The constitution of every country, however, has different characteristics that can influence the form of the state. As regards the freedom of religion, we often hear about the different concepts of a religious state, secular state and other types of state.The Indian Constitution, which added the word “secular”, shows that India is a secular state that places special emphasis on the values of freedom of religion and tolerance. The First Amendment to the American Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for each of its citizen.In relationship between constitutions and freedom of religion, the countries that have majority Muslim populations are divided into four categories.First, countries that openly declare themselves to be Islamic states.Second, countries that have officially adopted Islam as the official religion of the state.Third, countries that declare themselves to be secular states.Fourth, countries that make no such declarations in their constitutions. If Maldives belongs to the first category, then the question arises as to what is the real concept of the state that was created by our founding fathers? The question is when did Maldives became an Islamic state and How? What was the religion of our fore fathers? Originally Maldivians followed the Dravidian Mother-Goddess worship and its rituals. The country underwent a conversion to Buddhism about 2,000 years ago which brought about an unprecedented flourishing of the Maldivian culture, including the language which by then developed its own script. Almost all significant Maldivian archaeological remains and cultural accomplishments are from that period. But about 800 years ago the country was converted to the Muslim religion.A confessional state can only be based on a particular religion, while a secular state prevents religion from interfering with state affairs. Moreover, Can Maldives be or become a nation through its constitutional reform?
2. A just and trustworthy government.
3. A free and independent people.
4. A vigorous pursuit and mastery of knowledge.
5. A balanced and comprehensive economic development.
6. A good quality of life for the people.
7. Protection of the rights of minority groups, religion and women and children.
8. Cultural and moral integrity.
9. Safeguarding the environment.
10. Strong defense capabilities
Out of the above ten most basic human rights. A free and independent people are one of the main principles of Islam and in a constitution. In a Shariah law or in a constitution or both combined, the most important is to create free and independent people.
when rule of law and regulation is written in Allah’s words in Holy Quran?
A religious state that protects and facilitates the development of all religions adhered to by the people without any differences in treatment arising from the number of a religion’s adherent?In this context, it is essential that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect the freedom of religion of each of its citizens, when the Constitution is held in one hand, the holy book must be held in the other hand. This means that these two things have to work in harmony and that one cannot contradict the other.Maldives is one of the countries that lack experience as regards the protection of freedom of religion through the constitutional reform mechanism. In fact, this mechanism is an important tool in other countries when the freedom of religion finds itself under attack by state action.Constitutional reform in Maldives is confined to the review of laws. This means that the Maldivian constitutional system and its practice need to be developed more seriously. Due to the lack of constitutional protection mechanisms, there are currently huge obstacles in the way of citizens seeking to affirm their basic rights to freedom of religion.The Maldives is going through a period in history which the nation has never seen before. Through the constitutional reform Shariah Law is included or not. In a modern and in a liberal democracy the constitution and its government function on basic human right in which includes.1. A secular state.
2. A just and trustworthy government.
3. A free and independent people.
4. A vigorous pursuit and mastery of knowledge.
5. A balanced and comprehensive economic development.
6. A good quality of life for the people.
7. Protection of the rights of minority groups, religion and women and children.
8. Cultural and moral integrity.
9. Safeguarding the environment.
10. Strong defense capabilities
Out of the above ten most basic human rights. A free and independent people are one of the main principles of Islam and in a constitution. In a Shariah law or in a constitution or both combined, the most important is to create free and independent people.
Independent people are able to produce dynamic and positive new ideas which are beneficial for the promotion of individuals, families, society and country. Independent people are not a society which exempted from the rules law and ethics. It must be used as a base to develop a strong society and country. An independent and free people must be able to select and choose for themselves, besides adopt an open attitude towards external cultures and traditions which do not go against values and ethics and that contribute towards the development of the nation. It is not merely slogans and declarations but requires sacrifices and serious efforts which contribute towards the development of the country.IF Shariah Law is to be included in the constitution, what is the reason to make or amend the constitution at all?
when rule of law and regulation is written in Allah’s words in Holy Quran?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam!
An ominous initiative that is discussed many times here -- the UN's efforts to silence those who call attention to the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits --gets attention in the New York Daily News.
"UN-acceptable censorship: The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam," by Floyd Abrams for the Daily News, January 14:
Almost 500 years ago, on the wall of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, characterizing as "madness" the notion that papal pardons could absolve individuals for their sins. As viewed from Rome, Luther had maligned, even defamed, the church. Luther was eventually excommunicated. His conduct ultimately led to the creation of a Protestant Church in Germany and a Reformation throughout Europe.It is difficult to believe that in the 21st century anyone would seriously propose that conduct such as Luther's should be deemed illegal. But a few weeks ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a giant step in that direction. It adopted - for the fourth straight year - a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the "defamation" of religion. Spurred by the Danish cartoons of 2005, some of which portrayed the Prophet Muhammed in a manner deemed offensive by the OIC, the resolution was opposed by the United States, most European nations, Japan, India and a number of other nations.
Nonetheless, it has now been adopted. [...]
From the very first OIC resolution to the current one there has never been any ambiguity about its purpose: to intimidate those who might criticize Islam. As phrased in the original OIC resolution introduced by Pakistan in 1999, Islam was "frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." But it is a fact that however one may debate about whether "Islam" bears any responsibility for acts of terrorism ranging from the murderous 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the more recent massacre in Mumbai, terrible acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam. It is also the case that repeated human rights violations, including female genital mutilation, also have occurred in the name of Islam.
It is one thing to urge that all Muslims should not be criticized because of these acts. But the notion that it may or should be made a crime even to "associate" Islam with crimes too often committed in its name is inconsistent with any notion that both freedom of speech and religion should be protected. What cannot be even negotiable is the freedom, the unfettered freedom, to publish challenging books, movies and - yes - the Danish cartoons.
Be sure to read it all.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Intellectual Censorship in Islam: A Matter of Life and Death
Many seem to believe that The Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie is the only intellectual who has ever been persecuted for “insulting Islam.” But the story does not begin – nor does it end – with Rushdie. Writers, poets, intellectuals and free-thinkers have been suffering – and dying -- for “insulting Islam” for more than 1400 years.
One of the more famous victims was Mansur Al-Hallaj. Al-Hallaj was a 10th-Century Sufi (Islamic mystic) master, famous today for being a mentor of popular Sufi poet Rumi. The specific charge was uttering “I am the Eternal Truth.” (Only Allah can be “The Eternal Truth” in Islam.) This was simply the logical outcome of Al-Hallaj’s Sufi beliefs, which held that “God” is found in all of us. It was, however, blasphemy according to the followers of Imam Hanbal (founder of Sunni Islam’s most reactionary school of Islamic law), who engineered Al-Hallaj’s persecution and eventual execution by crucifixion.
Today the weapon is more likely to be a gun or a knife than a cross, but Imams and mullahs and their collaborators are still killing or persecuting Al-Hallaj’s modern-day heirs and getting away with it.
Here are just a few of the prominent victims from the last 20 years:
Ali Dashti
Iranian statesman and Islamic historian. Dashti was imprisoned and tortured to death in Iran in the early 1980s for writing “23 Years,” a “warts-and-all” biography of the Prophet of Islam.
Hitoshi Igarashi Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Caprioli, Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was attacked with a knife in the same year, but survived. Aziz Nesin, Turkisk publisher and writer, who had printed extracts of The Satanic Verses in a Turkish newspaper, was attacked by a crazed religious mob in 1993 They cornered him in a hotel and set it on fire, killing 37 people, but Nesin, an elderly man in his late 70s, escaped. William Nygaard, Norwegian translator and publisher of Rushdie’s book. Nygaard was shot four times in the back in 1993 by an Islamic extremist. Naguib Mafouzworld-famous Egyptian author and Nobel Laureate. An elderly man in his 80s, Mafouz narrowly escaped a knife attack in 1994, after Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahmame, spiritual leader of the armed fundamentalist group al-Gama'a al Islamiyya, issued a death fatwa on his head. His “crime”: writing a book decades before that “insulted Islam.” Mafouz, physically and mentally traumatized by the attack, no longer writes. Taslima Nasrina Bangladeshi-born physician, poet and author. In 1993 Nasrin, a self-declared apostate, was sentenced to death by Muslim clerics for “insulting Islam.” That year 300,000 people demonstrated in her native land, calling for the poet to be burned alive. She escaped to the West, but still hides, her life blighted by a price on her head and not one but two death fatwas issued by pious Muslim clerics. Farag FodaAn Egyptian writer and human rights defender. Foda was shot dead by militants from an Islamic fundamentalist group after being branded as an apostate by officials at Al-Azhar, the leading Islamic educational institute in the world.Anwar Sheikha Kashmir-born man of letters, was targeted with a death fatwa for writing books that explored the imperialist nature of Islam. As a young man, Sheikh admitted to have been a fundamentalist who murdered innocent non-Muslims in cold blood during the partition of India in 1947. He now lives discreetly in a Western nation. Nasr Abu Zaid - Egyptian Quranic scholar. Abu Zaid was convicted in Egypt of being an apostate from Islam in 1995. He was involuntarily divorced from his wife of many years for advancing the cause of textual criticism of the Quran. He escaped to the West in fear of his life as a convicted apostate, where he reunited with his wife, but remains a target for assassination from Islamic fanatics. Rashad Khalifa - Islamic reformer, an Egyptian immigrant to the USA. Khalifa was founder of a controversial movement in Islam called the “Submitters”, who deny the authenticity of many Islamic traditions. Declared an apostate in a fatwa issued by 38 Islamic scholars in Saudi Arabia, Khalifa was murdered in 1990 in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the crime was never solved, the prime suspects have been linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden. Matoub Lounes - Popular Algerian song-writer, political activist for Algeria’s Berber people, and singer, Lounes was murdered in 1998. The murder remains unsolved, but the radical Islamic gang, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), is the main suspect. The GIA had kidnapped Lounes in 1994 and held him hostage for two weeks. Dr. Younis Shaikh a Pakistani physician and lecturer. Convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan in 2001 for the “crime” of stating the Prophet of Islam’s parents were not Muslim and the prophet was not circumsized. Sentenced to death in August 2001, Shaikh at this writing (January 2002) languishes in jail while his sentence is appealed. Robert Hussein (Born Hussein Q’amber Ali)a Kuwaiti-born businessman. A former Shiite Muslim, Hussein was convicted of apostasy by an Islamic court in his native land in 1996 for the “crime” of converting to Christianity. He escaped to the West under threat of death with assistance from Christian missionary groups and published a book called “Apostate Son.” Nawal El-SaddaawiEgyptian feminist and author of many books. In 2001, El-Saddaawi narrowly escaped conviction in her native land as an apostate. A conviction would have forced El-Saddaawi to divorce her husband in recognition of Islamic law that Muslims cannot remain married to apostates. Her “crime” was stating that the Muslim Hajj pilgrimage had Pagan historical origins. Once imprisoned for her outspoken feminist views, El-Saddawi courageously remains in Egypt although clearly a target for assassination from a radical Islamist. Tahmineh Milni, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker. Arrested in August 2001 and charged by Iran’s Islamic religious establishment with “waging war against God”, Milni could be executed if found guilty of the charge. Her “crime” was making a film that contained references to the miserable conditions of women under the Islamic regime of Iran. Khalid Duran, Moroccan/German academic and critic of Islamic extremism. In 2001, Duran, while teaching at the university level in the U.S., evoked death threats from the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan for writing a book called “Children Of Abraham: Explaining Islam to Jews.” The death threat was the direct result of an anti-Duran public realtions crusade engineered by the Washington, DC-based Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Duran went into hiding as a result of the Jordanian edict. Curiously, Islamic apologist Dr. John Esposito of Georgetown University’s “Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding” gave the keynote speech at CAIR’s annual fund-raising dinner only a few months after this incident occurred, seemingly untroubled by CAIR’s role in soliciting the murder of a fellow academic. Mahmoud Muhammed Talal, Islamic reformer, SudanTalal wrote many books criticizing Sharia (Islamic law). He was convicted of apostasy and creating “fitnah” (religious tourmoil) by an Islamic court in Sudan and hanged for this “crime” in 1985.The above is only a small representation the number of intellectuals, writers, artists and reformers who have been systemically terrorized, imprisoned and even assassinated by Islamic thought police on all continents, even in the so-called “free” West. (As the Norwegian national William Nygaard and the U.S.-resident Khalid Duran can undoubtedly confirm). This “censorship by terrorism” not only shows the widespread lack of intellectual maturity that is prevalent in the Islamic world today, but also begs a more disturbing question: how accurate are of many of the books and articles currently being published about Islam?If an author or academic addressing the subject of Islam, whether in fact or fiction, must continually look over his shoulder for the knife or gun of a fanatic, it should not surprise us that many such works tread a very thin line between truth and apologia. The bland books about Islam authored by the likes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito have never elicited any death threats or fanatical attention; astute readers may well ask themselves why?
By Susan Stephan
One of the more famous victims was Mansur Al-Hallaj. Al-Hallaj was a 10th-Century Sufi (Islamic mystic) master, famous today for being a mentor of popular Sufi poet Rumi. The specific charge was uttering “I am the Eternal Truth.” (Only Allah can be “The Eternal Truth” in Islam.) This was simply the logical outcome of Al-Hallaj’s Sufi beliefs, which held that “God” is found in all of us. It was, however, blasphemy according to the followers of Imam Hanbal (founder of Sunni Islam’s most reactionary school of Islamic law), who engineered Al-Hallaj’s persecution and eventual execution by crucifixion.
Today the weapon is more likely to be a gun or a knife than a cross, but Imams and mullahs and their collaborators are still killing or persecuting Al-Hallaj’s modern-day heirs and getting away with it.
Here are just a few of the prominent victims from the last 20 years:
Ali Dashti
Iranian statesman and Islamic historian. Dashti was imprisoned and tortured to death in Iran in the early 1980s for writing “23 Years,” a “warts-and-all” biography of the Prophet of Islam.
Hitoshi Igarashi Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Caprioli, Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was attacked with a knife in the same year, but survived. Aziz Nesin, Turkisk publisher and writer, who had printed extracts of The Satanic Verses in a Turkish newspaper, was attacked by a crazed religious mob in 1993 They cornered him in a hotel and set it on fire, killing 37 people, but Nesin, an elderly man in his late 70s, escaped. William Nygaard, Norwegian translator and publisher of Rushdie’s book. Nygaard was shot four times in the back in 1993 by an Islamic extremist. Naguib Mafouzworld-famous Egyptian author and Nobel Laureate. An elderly man in his 80s, Mafouz narrowly escaped a knife attack in 1994, after Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahmame, spiritual leader of the armed fundamentalist group al-Gama'a al Islamiyya, issued a death fatwa on his head. His “crime”: writing a book decades before that “insulted Islam.” Mafouz, physically and mentally traumatized by the attack, no longer writes. Taslima Nasrina Bangladeshi-born physician, poet and author. In 1993 Nasrin, a self-declared apostate, was sentenced to death by Muslim clerics for “insulting Islam.” That year 300,000 people demonstrated in her native land, calling for the poet to be burned alive. She escaped to the West, but still hides, her life blighted by a price on her head and not one but two death fatwas issued by pious Muslim clerics. Farag FodaAn Egyptian writer and human rights defender. Foda was shot dead by militants from an Islamic fundamentalist group after being branded as an apostate by officials at Al-Azhar, the leading Islamic educational institute in the world.Anwar Sheikha Kashmir-born man of letters, was targeted with a death fatwa for writing books that explored the imperialist nature of Islam. As a young man, Sheikh admitted to have been a fundamentalist who murdered innocent non-Muslims in cold blood during the partition of India in 1947. He now lives discreetly in a Western nation. Nasr Abu Zaid - Egyptian Quranic scholar. Abu Zaid was convicted in Egypt of being an apostate from Islam in 1995. He was involuntarily divorced from his wife of many years for advancing the cause of textual criticism of the Quran. He escaped to the West in fear of his life as a convicted apostate, where he reunited with his wife, but remains a target for assassination from Islamic fanatics. Rashad Khalifa - Islamic reformer, an Egyptian immigrant to the USA. Khalifa was founder of a controversial movement in Islam called the “Submitters”, who deny the authenticity of many Islamic traditions. Declared an apostate in a fatwa issued by 38 Islamic scholars in Saudi Arabia, Khalifa was murdered in 1990 in Tuscon, Arizona. Although the crime was never solved, the prime suspects have been linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden. Matoub Lounes - Popular Algerian song-writer, political activist for Algeria’s Berber people, and singer, Lounes was murdered in 1998. The murder remains unsolved, but the radical Islamic gang, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), is the main suspect. The GIA had kidnapped Lounes in 1994 and held him hostage for two weeks. Dr. Younis Shaikh a Pakistani physician and lecturer. Convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan in 2001 for the “crime” of stating the Prophet of Islam’s parents were not Muslim and the prophet was not circumsized. Sentenced to death in August 2001, Shaikh at this writing (January 2002) languishes in jail while his sentence is appealed. Robert Hussein (Born Hussein Q’amber Ali)a Kuwaiti-born businessman. A former Shiite Muslim, Hussein was convicted of apostasy by an Islamic court in his native land in 1996 for the “crime” of converting to Christianity. He escaped to the West under threat of death with assistance from Christian missionary groups and published a book called “Apostate Son.” Nawal El-SaddaawiEgyptian feminist and author of many books. In 2001, El-Saddaawi narrowly escaped conviction in her native land as an apostate. A conviction would have forced El-Saddaawi to divorce her husband in recognition of Islamic law that Muslims cannot remain married to apostates. Her “crime” was stating that the Muslim Hajj pilgrimage had Pagan historical origins. Once imprisoned for her outspoken feminist views, El-Saddawi courageously remains in Egypt although clearly a target for assassination from a radical Islamist. Tahmineh Milni, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker. Arrested in August 2001 and charged by Iran’s Islamic religious establishment with “waging war against God”, Milni could be executed if found guilty of the charge. Her “crime” was making a film that contained references to the miserable conditions of women under the Islamic regime of Iran. Khalid Duran, Moroccan/German academic and critic of Islamic extremism. In 2001, Duran, while teaching at the university level in the U.S., evoked death threats from the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan for writing a book called “Children Of Abraham: Explaining Islam to Jews.” The death threat was the direct result of an anti-Duran public realtions crusade engineered by the Washington, DC-based Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Duran went into hiding as a result of the Jordanian edict. Curiously, Islamic apologist Dr. John Esposito of Georgetown University’s “Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding” gave the keynote speech at CAIR’s annual fund-raising dinner only a few months after this incident occurred, seemingly untroubled by CAIR’s role in soliciting the murder of a fellow academic. Mahmoud Muhammed Talal, Islamic reformer, SudanTalal wrote many books criticizing Sharia (Islamic law). He was convicted of apostasy and creating “fitnah” (religious tourmoil) by an Islamic court in Sudan and hanged for this “crime” in 1985.The above is only a small representation the number of intellectuals, writers, artists and reformers who have been systemically terrorized, imprisoned and even assassinated by Islamic thought police on all continents, even in the so-called “free” West. (As the Norwegian national William Nygaard and the U.S.-resident Khalid Duran can undoubtedly confirm). This “censorship by terrorism” not only shows the widespread lack of intellectual maturity that is prevalent in the Islamic world today, but also begs a more disturbing question: how accurate are of many of the books and articles currently being published about Islam?If an author or academic addressing the subject of Islam, whether in fact or fiction, must continually look over his shoulder for the knife or gun of a fanatic, it should not surprise us that many such works tread a very thin line between truth and apologia. The bland books about Islam authored by the likes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito have never elicited any death threats or fanatical attention; astute readers may well ask themselves why?
By Susan Stephan
Thursday, October 16, 2008
MALDIVES: Religious freedom survey, October 2008
The Maldives is well known as a tourist destination, but its severe repression of freedom of thought, conscience and belief is less well-known. The Maldives is one of the few states – such as Saudi Arabia - that allows only one faith to be practised publicly, and even insists that all citizens must be Muslims. Islam itself can only be openly practised in the government-favoured version of Sunni Islam, Forum 18 News Service has found. The public practice of other faiths – including other forms of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity – is banned. The state closely monitors all forms of religious expression, Forum 18 notes, and the cramped living conditions most Maldivians endure facilitates this. Maldivians are - justifiably – fearful that they will face severe consequences if they publicly and identifiably defend everyone's right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief. No candidate in the country's first multi-party presidential election, for which a run-off is due on 28 October, has called for improvement in this aspect of the country's human rights record.
The Maldives government claims to tourists that the Indian Ocean archipelago represents "the sunny of side of life", yet it severely represses freedom of thought, conscience and belief. The Maldives is one of the few countries – such as Saudi Arabia - that legally allow only one faith to be practised publicly. However, the Maldivian authorities go much further even than that, insisting on homogeneity in religion and that all citizens must be Muslims. Islam itself can only be practised in the government version of Sunni Islam. The public practice of any other faith – including other varieties of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity – is banned. The Republic of the Maldives is a collection of 1,190 coral reef islands in the Indian Ocean, south west of Sri Lanka. Only 200 islands are inhabited, with 44 used exclusively as holiday resort islands. The Maldives has a population of about 300,000 citizens, plus about 65,000 migrant workers. About one third of the population lives in the capital Male, in an area of about 2 square kms or just over three quarters of a square mile. This means that most Maldivian houses are overcrowded, and individuals mostly have no privacy. State control of the opinions and actions of Maldivians is made easy by these poor living conditions. Since 1978, the Maldives has been under the regime of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. For the first time ever, multi-party presidential elections were held on 8 October 2008. According to the official count, President Gayoom won the largest share of the votes of the six candidates. But this was not enough for an outright victory, so a run-off election (currently due on 28 October) will take place between President Gayoom and the largest opposition party's candidate Mohamed Nasheed. In 2003 the death of a prisoner, who had allegedly been beaten by police, sparked public protests. Demands escalated for political reform and human rights. In June 2004, yielding to internal and external pressure, President Gayoom announced plans to make changes to the Constitution to bring it into line with modern democratic and human rights norms. On 7 August 2008 President Gayoom ratified the new Constitution, a major step in the political reform process. Yet, the reform process bypassed the issue of religious rights. The Maldives has ratified many international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, on acceding to the ICCPR in September 2006, the government lodged a reservation over Article 18 (which covers rights to freedom of religion and belief), specifying that "The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.". This reservation effectively nullifies the commitment. The lack of religious freedom for all Maldivians (whether or not they are Muslim) is enshrined in the present and previous Constitutions, and clearly violates the ICCPR's provisions. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir, in a February 2007 report (A/HRC/4/21/Add.3) following her August 2006 visit, expressed concerns about a wide range of restrictions on religious activity. She urged the government to change the law to allow all residents of the Maldives to be allowed to choose their own religion or belief, to end the ban on manifestation of non-Muslim religions or beliefs, and called on the government to review its reservation to Article 18 of the ICCPR. Government-defined Islam the only permitted faith The new 2008 Constitution brings in separation of powers and a bill of rights. However, religious freedom remains a taboo subject in the Maldives. The government claims that Islam is a vital cultural trait of being Maldivian, and therefore religious freedom is not an issue in the Maldives. It categorically ignores the existence of non-Muslim Maldivians. The new Constitution spells out more strongly than before that all Maldivians have to be Muslims. Article 36 states that "The exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of responsibilities and duties, and it is the responsibility of every citizen: (..) (g) to preserve and protect the State religion of Islam, culture, language and heritage of the country". Article 9, Section D (which defines citizenship) states that "a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives". On 17 May 2008, the Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed (not the same person as the presidential candidate) admitted on his personal blog that: "When the revised constitution gets introduced, it will operate to take away the citizenship from citizens of Maldives who may have a faith different from Islam." He made this statement after stating that: "Maldives leadership and the Maldives people have always said that Maldives is, as a matter of fact, a 100 percent Islamic nation. However being Moslem is not a requirement of law; and is subject to dispute by some. There are many who argue that there may be Maldives nationals or dual citizenship holders possibly professing a different faith." The minister's earlier statement has the worrying implication that Maldivians who convert away from Islam, or who are children of Maldivians married to non-Muslims, risk losing their citizenship under the new Constitution. This is in line with the Maldivian reservation to Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that all Maldivians should be Muslim. The Protection of Religious Unity Act (Law No. 6/94) regulates all aspects of religion in a way that ensures religious homogeneity. Maldivian non-Muslims and Maldivians who do not wish to practice Sunni Islam in the state-approved way have to hide and even deny their convictions and beliefs. In the past, Maldivians suspected of having converted away from Islam have been imprisoned. While imprisoned, these people were publicly branded as "traitors", "second class citizens", "immature", as well as being accused of having been led astray by "foreign forces". They were released from prison only after signing a declaration that they believed in Islam. After their release, they were shunned and are still regarded with suspicion by government officials and members of the public. Some of them lost their jobs. The treatment of these people still serves as a warning to all Maldivians. Fearing the grave consequences of disobedience to the government's religious line, Maldivians are inhibited from identifying their own convictions. The cramped living conditions most Maldivians have to endure make it easy for the government to detect religious or political dissent. Even Maldivians living abroad do not dare to identify as non-Muslims. They feel that they are observed and checked by fellow Maldivians and blacklisted if they fail to obey the government's religious rules. Maldivian non-Muslims and other Maldivians who do not want to practice their faith in the state approved way cannot practice their own faith. They cannot even pray the way they want. Kneeling down, folding hands or using religious symbols like crosses, candles, pictures or statues can lead to government action. Performing movements in the Namaadu (namaz or Islamic ritual prayer) differently to the state-approved way can also lead to arrest by the police. These restrictions also apply to foreign workers, who can only practice their faith privately when Maldivians are not present. This is especially difficult for the many Hindu and Buddhist labourers, who live without any privacy in large, crowded accommodation or as servants in Maldivian houses. Strict state censorship Maldivians face great difficulties in obtaining information about non-state approved beliefs. This is a particularly severe deprivation for those Maldivians who do not follow the state's religious views. Maldivians are not allowed to possess religious material – whether holy books, audio and video tapes, CDs and DVDs, pictures or artefacts - that is not approved by the government. Sometimes private houses and mosques are raided by police in their search for non state-approved religious material. When found, all such material is confiscated. Electronic media, radio broadcasts, the internet, and printed material are all censored by the government. Access to foreign non-Muslim religious media, such as the Dhivehi (the Maldivian language) Christian website Sidahitun.com, is blocked inside the Maldives. Everything deemed to be outside the government's interpretation of Islam is banned. Such tight state censorship extends to Maldivians living abroad. Bookshop owners in India and Sri Lanka who tried to sell religious literature in Dhivehi that was not approved by the Maldivian government, have been harassed and threatened. This continued until they removed the material from their shelves. The luggage of Maldivians returning to the country is searched and all unauthorised religious material is confiscated. Foreign citizens arriving in the Maldives – whether as migrant workers or tourists – also have their luggage searched for "un-Islamic" materials. Small quantities of non-Muslim literature for personal use are generally permitted to foreign tourists. However, this does not include such material as Christian Scripture in Dhivehi. State intimidation of those who think differently Maldivians are also not allowed to discuss their faith with anyone. No-one is allowed to discuss religion without the explicit permission of the government. Even imams are only allowed to discuss religion after passing an exam and being certified by the Government's Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (SCIA). The SCIA also writes the Friday sermon to be delivered at mosques. Imams who refuse or fail to follow these regulations may face serious consequences. In March 2008 the SCIA banned Afrashim Ali, who has a doctorate from Malaysia's International Islamic University, from preaching in public until he had lived in the country for at least one year. Dr Ali previously contradicted the SCIA by openly arguing that singing was not un-Islamic. Also in June 2008 the SCIA banned a book co-authored by former attorney general and presidential candidate Dr Hassan Saeed with his brother, Melbourne University professor Abdullah Saeed. The book, "Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam", published in Britain in English in 2004, questions the validity of the apostasy law in Islam and advocates the need to rethink and reform the apostasy laws. However, it does not discuss the case of the Maldives. The restrictive attitude of the Maldivian government leads to the isolation of religiously non-conformist Maldivians, whether Muslim or of other faiths. They do not even dare to discuss their beliefs with their spouses and children. The political intimidation of the public and the official denigration of religiously non-conformist people have led to widespread mistrust and fear. Children of people who are suspected of holding alternative religious convictions are sometimes interrogated by their teachers about their parents' opinions and convictions. Constant intimidation and oppression leads people to act contrary to their own convictions and beliefs. Some people feel forced to perform Muslim ritual prayers (in the state-approved way) to avoid any possible suspicion. They also feel forced to teach their children according to the government's will instead of their own conviction. They are forced to observe the fast during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. After the first week of this year's Ramadan, which began in early September 2008, a Maldivian radio station announced that the police had already arrested 76 people for not fasting. No freedom within education Although "everyone has the right to education without discrimination of any kind" in Article 36 (a) of the new Constitution, this is contradicted by Article 36 (c). This reads: "Education shall strive to inculcate obedience to Islam, instil love for Islam, foster respect for human rights, and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all people." Accordingly, all teaching material has to be approved by the government. In the past history textbooks have been banned for reasons such as including texts about the sixteenth century Reformation of the Christian Church in Europe. In May 2008 a local school library was closed following the discovery of a book containing stories "based on stories of Christianity". Islamic Studies is a compulsory subject for all students up to school-leaving examinations. There is no provision for non-Muslim students to be taught in their chosen religion or beliefs. The 64,000 expatriates living in the Maldives are not allowed to open schools for their children, or to practice their faiths openly. Non-Muslim marriages and burials barred Contrary to the Islamic principle that forbids coercion, the Maldivian government only recognises Islamic marriages. Non-Muslim men who want to marry a Maldivian woman are required to convert to Islam. Without this, any marriage is illegal. Similarly, Maldivian men are only allowed to marry Muslim, Christian or Jewish women. However, marriages to women of Christian and Jewish faiths are subject to biased administrative policies which make the process cumbersome. In addition, marriages performed and registered outside the Maldives are not legally recognised in the country, unless they are registered at the Family Court in the Maldives. This Court only recognises marriages performed in an "Islamic way," at approved institutions. There are no provisions for the burial of non-Muslims. Public institutions, such as prisons and hospitals, have no facilities (eg. places for private worship, dietary provision) for non-Muslim people. Thus, even the religious freedom of the dead and those closest to them is not respected. Fear of standing up for religious freedom Some Maldivians risked much, when in 2003 they started to publicly voice opposition to political oppression, and called for more human rights. However, so far no Maldivian has dared to publicly stand up against the violation of religious rights. The government's policy of labelling all such attempts as high treason has successfully inhibited Maldivians from standing up against this oppression. In the 2008 presidential election campaign, no candidates spoke up for freedom of religion or belief in the Maldives, and some called for this fundamental right to be further restricted. All of the candidates stressed that they wanted to defend the Islamic identity of the country. How can religious freedom come to the Maldives? The Maldives is the only country worldwide that legally prescribes and enforces homogeneity in religion. Maldivians are - justifiably – fearful that they will face severe consequences if they publicly and identifiably defend everyone's right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Because of this fear, Maldivians hope the international community will support their struggle. One step to do this is for states and human rights organisations to urge the Maldivian government to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir, in her report (A/HRC/4/21/Add.3). Maldivians themselves, not just tourists, also want to experience "the sunny side of life" in the Maldives. (END)
By Odd Larsen, Forum 18 News Service
The Maldives government claims to tourists that the Indian Ocean archipelago represents "the sunny of side of life", yet it severely represses freedom of thought, conscience and belief. The Maldives is one of the few countries – such as Saudi Arabia - that legally allow only one faith to be practised publicly. However, the Maldivian authorities go much further even than that, insisting on homogeneity in religion and that all citizens must be Muslims. Islam itself can only be practised in the government version of Sunni Islam. The public practice of any other faith – including other varieties of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity – is banned. The Republic of the Maldives is a collection of 1,190 coral reef islands in the Indian Ocean, south west of Sri Lanka. Only 200 islands are inhabited, with 44 used exclusively as holiday resort islands. The Maldives has a population of about 300,000 citizens, plus about 65,000 migrant workers. About one third of the population lives in the capital Male, in an area of about 2 square kms or just over three quarters of a square mile. This means that most Maldivian houses are overcrowded, and individuals mostly have no privacy. State control of the opinions and actions of Maldivians is made easy by these poor living conditions. Since 1978, the Maldives has been under the regime of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. For the first time ever, multi-party presidential elections were held on 8 October 2008. According to the official count, President Gayoom won the largest share of the votes of the six candidates. But this was not enough for an outright victory, so a run-off election (currently due on 28 October) will take place between President Gayoom and the largest opposition party's candidate Mohamed Nasheed. In 2003 the death of a prisoner, who had allegedly been beaten by police, sparked public protests. Demands escalated for political reform and human rights. In June 2004, yielding to internal and external pressure, President Gayoom announced plans to make changes to the Constitution to bring it into line with modern democratic and human rights norms. On 7 August 2008 President Gayoom ratified the new Constitution, a major step in the political reform process. Yet, the reform process bypassed the issue of religious rights. The Maldives has ratified many international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, on acceding to the ICCPR in September 2006, the government lodged a reservation over Article 18 (which covers rights to freedom of religion and belief), specifying that "The application of the principles set out in Article 18 of the Covenant shall be without prejudice to the Constitution of the Republic of Maldives.". This reservation effectively nullifies the commitment. The lack of religious freedom for all Maldivians (whether or not they are Muslim) is enshrined in the present and previous Constitutions, and clearly violates the ICCPR's provisions. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir, in a February 2007 report (A/HRC/4/21/Add.3) following her August 2006 visit, expressed concerns about a wide range of restrictions on religious activity. She urged the government to change the law to allow all residents of the Maldives to be allowed to choose their own religion or belief, to end the ban on manifestation of non-Muslim religions or beliefs, and called on the government to review its reservation to Article 18 of the ICCPR. Government-defined Islam the only permitted faith The new 2008 Constitution brings in separation of powers and a bill of rights. However, religious freedom remains a taboo subject in the Maldives. The government claims that Islam is a vital cultural trait of being Maldivian, and therefore religious freedom is not an issue in the Maldives. It categorically ignores the existence of non-Muslim Maldivians. The new Constitution spells out more strongly than before that all Maldivians have to be Muslims. Article 36 states that "The exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of responsibilities and duties, and it is the responsibility of every citizen: (..) (g) to preserve and protect the State religion of Islam, culture, language and heritage of the country". Article 9, Section D (which defines citizenship) states that "a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives". On 17 May 2008, the Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed (not the same person as the presidential candidate) admitted on his personal blog that: "When the revised constitution gets introduced, it will operate to take away the citizenship from citizens of Maldives who may have a faith different from Islam." He made this statement after stating that: "Maldives leadership and the Maldives people have always said that Maldives is, as a matter of fact, a 100 percent Islamic nation. However being Moslem is not a requirement of law; and is subject to dispute by some. There are many who argue that there may be Maldives nationals or dual citizenship holders possibly professing a different faith." The minister's earlier statement has the worrying implication that Maldivians who convert away from Islam, or who are children of Maldivians married to non-Muslims, risk losing their citizenship under the new Constitution. This is in line with the Maldivian reservation to Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that all Maldivians should be Muslim. The Protection of Religious Unity Act (Law No. 6/94) regulates all aspects of religion in a way that ensures religious homogeneity. Maldivian non-Muslims and Maldivians who do not wish to practice Sunni Islam in the state-approved way have to hide and even deny their convictions and beliefs. In the past, Maldivians suspected of having converted away from Islam have been imprisoned. While imprisoned, these people were publicly branded as "traitors", "second class citizens", "immature", as well as being accused of having been led astray by "foreign forces". They were released from prison only after signing a declaration that they believed in Islam. After their release, they were shunned and are still regarded with suspicion by government officials and members of the public. Some of them lost their jobs. The treatment of these people still serves as a warning to all Maldivians. Fearing the grave consequences of disobedience to the government's religious line, Maldivians are inhibited from identifying their own convictions. The cramped living conditions most Maldivians have to endure make it easy for the government to detect religious or political dissent. Even Maldivians living abroad do not dare to identify as non-Muslims. They feel that they are observed and checked by fellow Maldivians and blacklisted if they fail to obey the government's religious rules. Maldivian non-Muslims and other Maldivians who do not want to practice their faith in the state approved way cannot practice their own faith. They cannot even pray the way they want. Kneeling down, folding hands or using religious symbols like crosses, candles, pictures or statues can lead to government action. Performing movements in the Namaadu (namaz or Islamic ritual prayer) differently to the state-approved way can also lead to arrest by the police. These restrictions also apply to foreign workers, who can only practice their faith privately when Maldivians are not present. This is especially difficult for the many Hindu and Buddhist labourers, who live without any privacy in large, crowded accommodation or as servants in Maldivian houses. Strict state censorship Maldivians face great difficulties in obtaining information about non-state approved beliefs. This is a particularly severe deprivation for those Maldivians who do not follow the state's religious views. Maldivians are not allowed to possess religious material – whether holy books, audio and video tapes, CDs and DVDs, pictures or artefacts - that is not approved by the government. Sometimes private houses and mosques are raided by police in their search for non state-approved religious material. When found, all such material is confiscated. Electronic media, radio broadcasts, the internet, and printed material are all censored by the government. Access to foreign non-Muslim religious media, such as the Dhivehi (the Maldivian language) Christian website Sidahitun.com, is blocked inside the Maldives. Everything deemed to be outside the government's interpretation of Islam is banned. Such tight state censorship extends to Maldivians living abroad. Bookshop owners in India and Sri Lanka who tried to sell religious literature in Dhivehi that was not approved by the Maldivian government, have been harassed and threatened. This continued until they removed the material from their shelves. The luggage of Maldivians returning to the country is searched and all unauthorised religious material is confiscated. Foreign citizens arriving in the Maldives – whether as migrant workers or tourists – also have their luggage searched for "un-Islamic" materials. Small quantities of non-Muslim literature for personal use are generally permitted to foreign tourists. However, this does not include such material as Christian Scripture in Dhivehi. State intimidation of those who think differently Maldivians are also not allowed to discuss their faith with anyone. No-one is allowed to discuss religion without the explicit permission of the government. Even imams are only allowed to discuss religion after passing an exam and being certified by the Government's Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs (SCIA). The SCIA also writes the Friday sermon to be delivered at mosques. Imams who refuse or fail to follow these regulations may face serious consequences. In March 2008 the SCIA banned Afrashim Ali, who has a doctorate from Malaysia's International Islamic University, from preaching in public until he had lived in the country for at least one year. Dr Ali previously contradicted the SCIA by openly arguing that singing was not un-Islamic. Also in June 2008 the SCIA banned a book co-authored by former attorney general and presidential candidate Dr Hassan Saeed with his brother, Melbourne University professor Abdullah Saeed. The book, "Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam", published in Britain in English in 2004, questions the validity of the apostasy law in Islam and advocates the need to rethink and reform the apostasy laws. However, it does not discuss the case of the Maldives. The restrictive attitude of the Maldivian government leads to the isolation of religiously non-conformist Maldivians, whether Muslim or of other faiths. They do not even dare to discuss their beliefs with their spouses and children. The political intimidation of the public and the official denigration of religiously non-conformist people have led to widespread mistrust and fear. Children of people who are suspected of holding alternative religious convictions are sometimes interrogated by their teachers about their parents' opinions and convictions. Constant intimidation and oppression leads people to act contrary to their own convictions and beliefs. Some people feel forced to perform Muslim ritual prayers (in the state-approved way) to avoid any possible suspicion. They also feel forced to teach their children according to the government's will instead of their own conviction. They are forced to observe the fast during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. After the first week of this year's Ramadan, which began in early September 2008, a Maldivian radio station announced that the police had already arrested 76 people for not fasting. No freedom within education Although "everyone has the right to education without discrimination of any kind" in Article 36 (a) of the new Constitution, this is contradicted by Article 36 (c). This reads: "Education shall strive to inculcate obedience to Islam, instil love for Islam, foster respect for human rights, and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all people." Accordingly, all teaching material has to be approved by the government. In the past history textbooks have been banned for reasons such as including texts about the sixteenth century Reformation of the Christian Church in Europe. In May 2008 a local school library was closed following the discovery of a book containing stories "based on stories of Christianity". Islamic Studies is a compulsory subject for all students up to school-leaving examinations. There is no provision for non-Muslim students to be taught in their chosen religion or beliefs. The 64,000 expatriates living in the Maldives are not allowed to open schools for their children, or to practice their faiths openly. Non-Muslim marriages and burials barred Contrary to the Islamic principle that forbids coercion, the Maldivian government only recognises Islamic marriages. Non-Muslim men who want to marry a Maldivian woman are required to convert to Islam. Without this, any marriage is illegal. Similarly, Maldivian men are only allowed to marry Muslim, Christian or Jewish women. However, marriages to women of Christian and Jewish faiths are subject to biased administrative policies which make the process cumbersome. In addition, marriages performed and registered outside the Maldives are not legally recognised in the country, unless they are registered at the Family Court in the Maldives. This Court only recognises marriages performed in an "Islamic way," at approved institutions. There are no provisions for the burial of non-Muslims. Public institutions, such as prisons and hospitals, have no facilities (eg. places for private worship, dietary provision) for non-Muslim people. Thus, even the religious freedom of the dead and those closest to them is not respected. Fear of standing up for religious freedom Some Maldivians risked much, when in 2003 they started to publicly voice opposition to political oppression, and called for more human rights. However, so far no Maldivian has dared to publicly stand up against the violation of religious rights. The government's policy of labelling all such attempts as high treason has successfully inhibited Maldivians from standing up against this oppression. In the 2008 presidential election campaign, no candidates spoke up for freedom of religion or belief in the Maldives, and some called for this fundamental right to be further restricted. All of the candidates stressed that they wanted to defend the Islamic identity of the country. How can religious freedom come to the Maldives? The Maldives is the only country worldwide that legally prescribes and enforces homogeneity in religion. Maldivians are - justifiably – fearful that they will face severe consequences if they publicly and identifiably defend everyone's right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Because of this fear, Maldivians hope the international community will support their struggle. One step to do this is for states and human rights organisations to urge the Maldivian government to implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir, in her report (A/HRC/4/21/Add.3). Maldivians themselves, not just tourists, also want to experience "the sunny side of life" in the Maldives. (END)
By Odd Larsen, Forum 18 News Service
Sunday, August 10, 2008
New Maldives constitution severely restricts non-Muslim rights
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy strongly condemns the new constitution ratified by the Maldives' legislature yesterday. The constitution fails to provide basic guarantees of rights and freedoms in the country for non-Muslims and also violates internationally accepted human rights standards and norms.
Article 9, Section D states that "a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives." By denying citizenship to some people on the basis of their religion, the country is violating religious minorities' freedom of worship.
"This denial of citizenship to non-Muslims is an extraordinarily harsh measure which places the Maldives among the worst countries in the world in regards to the legal foundation for freedom of religion and belief," said Institute President Joseph K. Grieboski.
In addition to denying non-Muslims citizenship, the new constitution establishes several other precepts which threaten the freedom of religion. The new constitution favors Sunni Islam over other forms of Islam, establishes certain aspects of Sharia law in the Maldives and limits the freedom of expression and thought to "manners" which are "not contrary to a tenet of Islam."
The Institute's Expert Committee on Legislation and Implementation is currently crafting a comprehensive analysis of the new constitution for expected release in September.
To go to source click here
Article 9, Section D states that "a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives." By denying citizenship to some people on the basis of their religion, the country is violating religious minorities' freedom of worship.
"This denial of citizenship to non-Muslims is an extraordinarily harsh measure which places the Maldives among the worst countries in the world in regards to the legal foundation for freedom of religion and belief," said Institute President Joseph K. Grieboski.
In addition to denying non-Muslims citizenship, the new constitution establishes several other precepts which threaten the freedom of religion. The new constitution favors Sunni Islam over other forms of Islam, establishes certain aspects of Sharia law in the Maldives and limits the freedom of expression and thought to "manners" which are "not contrary to a tenet of Islam."
The Institute's Expert Committee on Legislation and Implementation is currently crafting a comprehensive analysis of the new constitution for expected release in September.
To go to source click here
Friday, May 23, 2008
Maldivians have arrived at a fork in the road
One of the most important and essential parts of a modern society is the freedom of its individuals and the respect of the human rights of its members.
Will Maldivians take this road?
Or will we continue to debate how much of a woman should be covered, and how a Muslim apostate should be killed, and how “lightly” we should beat "our" women, and whether it’s lawful for a Muslim to befriend Jews and Christians and greet them or wish them well?
Are we going to continue with an educational system that consist of hate brainwashing towards non Muslims which we call it Islamic studies?
Or will we teach our children secularism, equal treatment of women and religious tolerance?
Are we to consign our children to become soldiers fighting to establish the rule of Allah on Earth, which is the Sharia law that supersedes and aims to abolish every man made law and constitution?
Will we be happier as subjects of a dictatorial theocracy?
Or are we going to be on the side of humanity that advances the world scientifically, medically, and technologically, striving with the civilized world to better the life of every human being?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Non Muslim Maldivian are refugee
Information minister Mohamed Nasheed has admitted on his personal blog that Maldivians who convert away from Islam, or who are children of Maldivians married to non-Muslims, risk losing their citizenship of the country under the constitution in progress.
The issue is believed to have been raised with government by international diplomats visiting Maldives during the development of the constitution.
A prominent lawyer who wished to remain anonymous told Minivan News the clause was “not practical” and would “formally introduce asylum seekers from the Maldives”, doing “more harm than good in the international community”.
He also acknowledged “practical” issues with the clause, saying it would be difficult to implement.
But Nasheed says a last-minute change is unlikely, because “it will be very difficult for Maldives mentality to accept Maldives citizens may belong to a different faith...No Maldives leader would want to rock the boat.”
The anonymous lawyer agreed public pressure was likely to prevent parliamentarians from opposing the clause.
The constitution has still not been finalised, and the attorney general’s office (AGO) has now raised over 200 issues of consistency, wording and practicality, to be addressed by the constitutional drafting committee and Special Majlis (constitutional assembly) before ratification. However the citizenship question does not appear on the list.
And presidential candidates were reluctant to adopt a position on the issue ahead of the country’s first multi-party presidential elections, expected once the constitution comes into force.
Former attorney general Dr Hassan Saeed, now standing as an independent candidate, said the issue was of “very little relevance” as “we do not have a non-Muslim population”.
Mohamed Nasheed (Anni), contesting on the largest opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) ticket, said the MDP “can’t have a position outside the constitution”.
However another candidate, Umar Naseer of the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP), said to local newspaper Miadhu: “In my government there would be no chance [of] any other religion.”
And Sheikh Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari, head of the religious Adhaalath party scholars’ council, told Minivan News in a May 13 interview he personally supported the tightening of citizenship regulation.
Citizenship is dealt with in the existing constitution, in force since 1998, in clause 5, which reads as follows: “Persons mentioned herein below shall be citizens of the Maldives: (a) every person who is a citizen of the Maldives at the commencement of this Constitution; (b) every child born to a citizen of the Maldives; and (c) every foreigner who, in accordance with the law, becomes a citizen of the Maldives.”
But the constitution in progress adds additional subclauses which specify (in unofficial translation) that “citizenship cannot be wrested away from a citizen of the Maldives”, “Any person who wishes to relinquish his citizenship may do so in accordance with law,” and “despite [earlier] provisions...a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.”
Despite the wording specifying citizenship cannot be “wrested away”, lawyers and government interpret the clause as removing citizenship from those who leave Islam or are children of non-Muslims.
“No Maldives politician would want to take the case up,” said Nasheed on his blog. Yet, he contends, “they all would privately agree that citizenship of the country he is born in, or his parents belong to, is...a human right.”
The anonymous lawyer said that because parliament is televised and “they [MPs] want to get re-elected”, a change through parliament was unlikely, but also said it would be “difficult” to reduce the impact of the clause through legislation.
The issue is believed to have been raised with government by international diplomats visiting Maldives during the development of the constitution.
A prominent lawyer who wished to remain anonymous told Minivan News the clause was “not practical” and would “formally introduce asylum seekers from the Maldives”, doing “more harm than good in the international community”.
He also acknowledged “practical” issues with the clause, saying it would be difficult to implement.But Nasheed says a last-minute change is unlikely, because “it will be very difficult for Maldives mentality to accept Maldives citizens may belong to a different faith...No Maldives leader would want to rock the boat.”
The anonymous lawyer agreed public pressure was likely to prevent parliamentarians from opposing the clause.
The constitution has still not been finalised, and the attorney general’s office (AGO) has now raised over 200 issues of consistency, wording and practicality, to be addressed by the constitutional drafting committee and Special Majlis (constitutional assembly) before ratification. However the citizenship question does not appear on the list.
And presidential candidates were reluctant to adopt a position on the issue ahead of the country’s first multi-party presidential elections, expected once the constitution comes into force.
Former attorney general Dr Hassan Saeed, now standing as an independent candidate, said the issue was of “very little relevance” as “we do not have a non-Muslim population”.
Mohamed Nasheed (Anni), contesting on the largest opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) ticket, said the MDP “can’t have a position outside the constitution”.
However another candidate, Umar Naseer of the Islamic Democratic Party (IDP), said to local newspaper Miadhu: “In my government there would be no chance [of] any other religion.”
And Sheikh Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari, head of the religious Adhaalath party scholars’ council, told Minivan News in a May 13 interview he personally supported the tightening of citizenship regulation.
Citizenship is dealt with in the existing constitution, in force since 1998, in clause 5, which reads as follows: “Persons mentioned herein below shall be citizens of the Maldives: (a) every person who is a citizen of the Maldives at the commencement of this Constitution; (b) every child born to a citizen of the Maldives; and (c) every foreigner who, in accordance with the law, becomes a citizen of the Maldives.”
But the constitution in progress adds additional subclauses which specify (in unofficial translation) that “citizenship cannot be wrested away from a citizen of the Maldives”, “Any person who wishes to relinquish his citizenship may do so in accordance with law,” and “despite [earlier] provisions...a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.”
Despite the wording specifying citizenship cannot be “wrested away”, lawyers and government interpret the clause as removing citizenship from those who leave Islam or are children of non-Muslims.
“No Maldives politician would want to take the case up,” said Nasheed on his blog. Yet, he contends, “they all would privately agree that citizenship of the country he is born in, or his parents belong to, is...a human right.”
The anonymous lawyer said that because parliament is televised and “they [MPs] want to get re-elected”, a change through parliament was unlikely, but also said it would be “difficult” to reduce the impact of the clause through legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
